As I mentioned in Part One, an article about a dismissed DUI case appeared in the weekly Pagosa Springs SUN on April 14, written by SUN editor Terri House. From what I can tell, Ms. House did an excellent job of obtaining certain facts related to the situation… but I nevertheless found the article somewhat lacking in objectivity.
I will explain my feelings about objectivity in a moment.
To summarize the story, local activist Rob Keating — who ran against incumbent Archuleta County Sheriff Richie Valdez in the 2018 election — was arrested by recently-hired Archuleta County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) deputy Shane Bracken, on October 5, 2019 for allegedly driving under the influence. The arrest took place during a field training with ACSO Sergeant Michael Sindelar, who supervised the arrest.
A subsequent blood test allegedly showed Mr. Keating’s alcohol levels to be higher than the legal limit.
Mr. Bracken resigned from the ACSO on December 3, 2021, but was called as a witness for Mr. Keating’s court hearing on March 9. That morning, Mr. Bracken revealed to the District prosecutor that Sheriff Valdez had offered to buy a steak dinner for any deputy who could arrest Mr. Keating for a DUI.
It’s my understanding that a government official who offers a ‘bounty’ for a particular person’s arrest may be violating the victim’s civil rights.
According to the SUN account, Christian Champagne, District Attorney for the Sixth Judicial District, decided to drop the case against Mr. Keating. From the SUN article:
“The allegation against Mr. Keating was based on the evidence that we had in the case. It raised an issue relating to the conduct of the law enforcement agency involved in his arrest that led us to believe that … it made it unlikely that we would have a reasonable likelihood of conviction,” Champagne said in an April 4 interview, adding, “It would cause people to question the reliability of this investigation.”
Valdez’ written statement to The SUN also notes that it was approximately two years and five months from the date of Keating’s initial arrest in 2019 before Bracken advised the assistant DA of the “alleged bounty.”
“At no time during his employment with Archuleta County Sheriff’s Office, did Mr. Bracken escalate his concerns of the alleged bounty through his immediate chain of command, or the District Attorney’s Office. This would have allowed the evidence to be discoverable by the District Attorney and Defense team leading up to the trial,” Valdez wrote.
On April 11, Mr. Bracken told the SUN that part of the reason he didn’t want to say anything about the bounty previously is that “the guy is going to get away with a [expletive] DUI.”
In her SUN article, Ms. House shares statements and assertions from Sheriff Richie Valdez, District Attorney Christian Champagne, investigator Anthony Meraz, Sergeant Michael Sindelar, former deputy Shane Bracken, and former Undersheriff Derek Woodman.
What I find disturbing, however, is that nowhere in her 1,926 word article does Ms. House quote the apparent victim, Rob Keating. Nor is there evidence in her article that Ms. House reached out to Mr. Keating’s attorney for a statement.
Meanwhile, Ms. House spent about about 700 words — nearly half the article — allowing Sheriff Valdez, Undersheriff Woodman, and District Attorney Champagne, to defend the actions of the ACSO.
Her article also mentions allegations that the Sheriff also offered a steak dinner ‘bounty’ for the arrest of Pagosa resident Paul Nobles, who also had his DUI case dismissed as a result of the same ‘bounty’ impropriety. Ms. House did not include any quotes from Mr. Nobles, but did note that Mr. Nobles was one of Mr. Keating’s most enthusiastic supporters during the 2018 election. (Mr. Nobles reportedly told Ms. House he was Mr. Keating’s ‘campaign manager’, but that claim is disputed by Mr. Keating.)
The manner in which the our only local print newspaper covered this controversy reflects a consistent pattern — in my experience — of carefully quoting elected and appointed government officials, and neglecting to properly represent the viewpoints of the ordinary taxpayers who may have been abused or mistreated by those same government officials.
My goal with this editorial series is to offer Mr. Keating’s viewpoint and opinions.
Mr. Keating and I met for coffee yesterday at a local venue that appeared to be seriously short of employees, to the point where I was unable to get served, despite waiting in line for about five minutes.
Luckily, the conversation with Mr. Keating was suitably refreshing, even without any coffee.
I started off by sharing a draft of this ‘Part Two’ with him, and he offered a couple of corrections to my information. (I had to make a couple of corrections to yesterday’s installment, as well.) He gave the date of his arrest as October 5 (not October 15) and said he was not taken to the Archuleta County jail but, rather, to the La Plata County jail, because our local jail was still under construction.
We talked about a quote shared by Terri House in her SUN article, quoting investigator Anthony Meraz.
“Bracken was told by Sindelar that there was also a steak dinner bounty being advertised for another individual, by the name of Paul Noble [sic], should he be arrested for DUI. Bracken learned that both Keating and Noble [sic] were known to be the ‘town drunks’ and known to frequently drink and drive.”
Mr. Keating told me he feels he has “a somewhat balanced view” of the problems caused by driving while intoxicated.
“But to be referred to in a news article as one of the ‘town drunks’?” he asked.
He noted that his friend, Paul Nobles — the other ‘town drunk’ — had campaign stickers on all his vehicles in 2018, supporting Mr. Keating’s run for Sheriff.
“And that was our downfall. That’s why they pulled me over. They recognized the campaign sticker on the back window, and that’s when they turned around” to follow Mr. Keating as he headed for his home down Highway 84.
“The story in the [Pagosa Springs SUN] is all factual stuff, but it’s definitely biased… and that’s what my jury trial would have brought out. I was looking forward to taking it to trial. My attorney didn’t want me to ‘throw them under the bus’ even at the trial… and I said, ‘I’m going to have you put me on the stand, and I’m going to talk…’
“And he said he thought that would make me look bad, and I said, ‘I don’t think it will…. let’s see where it goes…'”
Bill Hudson began sharing his opinions in the Pagosa Daily Post in 2004 and can’t seem to break the habit. He claims that, in Pagosa Springs, opinions are like pickup trucks: everybody has one.